Tereza Yere v Uganda (Revision Order Case No. 58/91) [1992] UGHC 84 (7 December 1992)

Full Case Text

### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

#### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

#### **REVISION ORDER CASE NO. 58/91**

| TEREZA | YERE | | | | | :::::::::::::::: | | | | | | | | | ACCUSED | | |---------|------|------|-----|---------|--|---------------------|------|--|--------|----------|--|--|------|--|------------|--| | | | | | | | | Via. | | | | | | | | | | | UGANDA | | | | | | I:::::::::::: | | | | | | | ':;; | | PROSECUTOR | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | BEFORE: | THE | HON. | MR. | JUSTICE | | ™ ■* I — G. M. »4>l» | | | OKELLO | pnni »lt | | | | | | |

# ORDER IN REVISION , . . •>

The accused was convicted on her own plea of guilty hy a Magistrate Grade 1 of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 228 of the Penal Code Act. She was subsequently. sentenced to a fine of 4000/= or to a term of four months Imprisonment Sh.e was also ordered to pay to the victim of the assault shs. . , . ' Z ' r ' 1,500/\* as compensation. z

The plea upon which the accused was convicted is unequivocal. It reads as under:- />£•,

v 'll understand: the charge and I did ^/as^au^e complainant and caused aim actual bodily harm."

The above is clearly an unequivocal plea of guilty to the charge of assault occassioning actual bodily harm. The facts which the accused admitted the truth of, show that the complainant had drunk some local beer from the accused on credit. On the date of the assault, the accused v?as again selling a similar beer wbaiy she sighted the complainant passing by. She then demanded from the complainant her debt.' Unfortunately the complainant did **not. '** have the money and the accused become angry. Sae picked a piece of wood and struck the complainant with it on the neck\_ The complainant **•wstained** injury on the neck. \* '

*- - ' 4<... j* . v i *. 'J\* **The optional order of sentence of a fine of a fine of 4r000/= or four months imprisonment is in my view improper.**

## order of

This type of Zentence is not known to our law. A proper order of sentence would impose a fine with a term of imprisonment as default sentence but not as an alternative one. If the four month's imprisonment was meant to be a default sentence for the fine of $4,000/$ =, the default sentence would still have been illegal for contravening section 192 (d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985. This section sets out the maximum default sentence for a fine of $4000/$ = to one month Imprisonment.

When the file was sent to the DPP for his view, Mr. Edward Mandera a State Attorney, writing the opinion for the DPP in his letter Ref: 6/4/2 of 13/8/92 shared above view and did not support the optional order of sentence. He did not wish to be heard in the event of a revisional order being made.

As pointed out above, a sentence which gives to an accused an option of either to pay an amount of money as fine or to serve a term of imprisonment is not known to our law. It is illegal. A. proper order of sentence would impose a fine with a term of imprisonment as a default sentence. In the circumstances the illegal order of sentence is set aside. In its place it is substituted an order sentencing the accused to a fine of shs. 4000/or in default of payment of the fine to imprisonment for one month.

The order of compensation is proper.

JUDGE. $7/12/92.$